mikeybikes

Curiosity has gotten the best of me.

If a Mandatory Helmet law for all ages were to appear on this years ballot in your community, would you vote for or against it?

Limey1212

Against

and now for some

rydabent

While I think it is totally stupid not to wear a helmet I would vote against that law. We are losing too many freedoms as it is.

CharmCityCycle

I always wear a helmet myself (now that I've finally found one that fits my enormous noggin), but I would vote against.

njkayaker

This is going to be a very boring poll!

mikeybikes

The point was to show something, and it's already doing its job.

B. Carfree

In 400,000 miles, through Pro-Tec head ovens, black and white V1 Pros, Skid-Lids, and much nicer modern helmets, I have never ridden without one. But I would NEVER force someone else, other than my own son when he was a minor, to wear one.

I wonder when someone is going to break the ice and favor such a proposal.

genec

Fully agree... and speaking of the V1-Pro... great helmet... had a real solid shell instead of the thin plastic "wrapper" on today's helmets. I even moved my chin guard from my skid lid to the V1-Pro and made what I thought was a perfect helmet.

But as far as mandatory laws... forget it... as long as cigarettes are still sold in stores and bars have parking lots, why in the heck should any other nanny law ever be foisted on us. Not that I am "all for smoking... " but just that we should let people make their own decisions when it comes to personal matters.

And frankly the mandatory helmets that ARE available, are crap anyway.

gcottay

I was part of the team talking with families about organ donation so favor mandatory motorcycle helmet laws but am stuck on the painful points of the fence on making bareheaded bicycling illegal. If pressed, I'd probably come down on the always wimpy side of lids for kids.

closetbiker

With the (seeming) overwhelming position of cyclists being against MHLs, it has one wondering just how they receive enough support to get passed.

I've heard many a time that they are passed by people who do not cycle and yet when this argument comes up, out comes some cyclists that voice their support.

I know in my province, when we passed our MHL, the provincial cycling advocacy organization supported the law. When some one linked the relatively recent Vancouver, Washington MHL I believe there was a representative of the Vancouver Washington cycling club there supporting the law.

My opinion is that far more non-cyclists support such laws. The media I've seen when these laws are proposed suggests the majority of cyclists support such laws. As with many issues around the passing of MHLs, it seems there's a bit of skullduggery goin' on.

njkayaker

Well, if a cyclist always wears a helmet, then such a law creates no limitation on them. That is, for those cyclists, there is no cost to them.

njkayaker

I realize that. I didn't say you should not have created the poll. I was just saying the results are going to be very, very predictable.

prathmann

If there's really such an overwhelming position against them, then why do so many bicycle clubs adopt mandatory helmet rules for their rides? AFAICT, it's *not* an insurance issue - the insurance company promoted by the LAB and used by many clubs has no such rule and does not mention helmet use on their suggested waiver form, nor have I ever gotten any confirmation of any other insurance company that has a mandatory helmet policy for regular club rides.

closetbiker

at the time, because I did wear a helmet and saw no reason why I may choose not to, I thought the law was no big deal. I did give some thought to the results of the province switching to helmet use and seeing if it would settle some of the arguments I heard people were having over helmets making any differences.

The arguments are still going on, but I think some of the people here have changed their minds on the effectiveness of helmets. I know cycling advocates who had supported the law and are in a position to comply with the law have contacted me personally about the articles I have written in the paper (describing how the law was passed with deception and deceit and how the law has failed to achieve its purpose) to voice their support of my views.

I think the law costs those cyclists wearing helmets something whether they know it or not.

closetbiker

Good question. If cyclists are for choice, why do they comply with legislation that removes that choice?

prathmann

Agreed. Cyclists tend to benefit from the presence of other cyclists in the area. Other road users are more likely to watch for cyclists and regard them as legitimate traffic when they see lots of riders. And cycling is far more likely to be given consideration in the planning and design of road facilities in areas with many cyclists.

Studies that have been done on the numbers of cyclists before and after imposition of a MHL generally show a marked decline and that's likely to have a negative impact on the remaining riders.

leob1

I always wear my seat belt, but I think it is just plain stupid to have a law that mandates it's use. The same is true with helmet laws. Your an idiot if you don't wear one, but it shouldn't be a law that requires it. I'd rather see a law that says that your insurance doesn't have to cover you if you crash and aren't wearing a helmet, or didn't have your seatbelt on. That would maybe change a lot of attitudes.

BTW, I'm also a former V1-pro owner, that thing was solid. I crashed it a bunch of times, all it got was scratched. I even found my kid using it for a stool, standing on it, didn't hurt it a bit.

bmclaughlin807

So... if I get hit by a truck while riding legally and correctly, and am hospitalized due to internal injuries, broken bones, etc., the insurance company shouldn't have to pay just because I wasn't wearing a helmet?

That's a pretty idiotic attitude, especially given the amount that -I- have to pay in increased medical costs to cover... oh, I don't know, where shall we begin?
Diabetes
Lung disease and cancer due to smoking
Heart and other health problems due to diet/lack of excercise and/or obesity
health problems of alcoholics
Death/injury from drunk drivers

and beyond health care... how about the damage caused to the environment by those who insist on jumping in their cars multiple times a day to make tiny trips... hell... the people in the apartment complex I live in won't walk to the convenience store next door.... they jump in their cars and drive around the block to get there and get their cigs or whatever.
.
.
.

The list goes on and on... by and large people who cycle frequently end up a much lesser burden on the health care system, insurance companies, and the taxpayer in general than someone that is sedentary and/or doesn't take proper care of themselves.

Helmets do NOT improve safety of cyclists... mandatory helmet laws are nothing but feel-good trash that makes some lawmaker feel good about himself because he did something to 'help' keep people safe... while not actually having to DO anything.

The actual effects of a mandatory helmet law are to REDUCE cyclist safety... the best studies done on the actual effects of mandatory helmet laws have been in Australia... where ridership plummeted, but numbers of serious head injuries and deaths stayed the same... same number of injuries, with a LOT fewer riders means that injury rates increased dramatically.

Do some research... what you'll find is that injury rates are pretty much proportional to helmet use rates... the higher the percentage of people using helmets, the higher the injury rates are... this is ture almost universally on a global scale. The places with the highest ridership percentages have the lowest injury rates (AND the lowest percentage of helmet usage), while the countries with the lowest ridership percentages have the highest injury/death rates (And also the highest helmet usage percentages)

What Americans don't get is that driving is NOT a 'right'... it's a privilege... one that should be revoked far more often and far more easily than it is here.... other countries have far harsher penalties and enforcement than we do... Americans take their cars for granted... they'll always be there... and if bad drivers kill 40,000 people a year... well, that's someone else's fault, right?

mikeybikes

To be fair with the poll, I don't think Bikeforums, or at least the A&S forum, accurately represents the general bicycling population.

I was sitting in a TS101 course a couple months ago and we were discussing pet peeves. One of the ladies in the class shouts "Cyclists not wearing helmets!" I wanted to retort, but I decided against it.

I'd imagine, you combine the cyclists who do believe everyone should wear helmets along with the non-cycling population which might not put much thought into bicycling safety, you'd get a mandatory helmet law.

njkayaker

That's possible. All I was doing was showing why some (clearly, not all) cyclists might be for such laws. Clearly, it's the appearance of "no cost" (whether or not there is an actual cost) that is the thing. Anyway, I think people should be suspicious of using the "it doesn't matter to me" as a reason to accept restricting things.

Yes, it doesn't accurately represent the general bicycling population.

Laserman

Okay. Conspiracy theory time. I'm not much for these but this one I can almost swallow.
Just suppose the auto companies were paying brib.....er making campaign contributions to politicians who support MHL's.
Just sayin'.

B. Carfree

Two points, one anecdotal and one a recounting of someone's research:
My nephew lives in a city that enforces the mandatory helmet law for minors. He got fed up with the tickets he got so he stopped riding his bike (he was 16). Then he found out they still give you a ticket when you go helmetless on a skateboard. So, he got his driver's license, had his dad and stepmother buy him a car and he is now a dedicated cager. One less bike, thanks to MHL.

Sometime in the last year there was an article on the BBC site about a research project done in Britain. The researcher mounted a detector on his bike to measure the passing distance the cagers were giving him and proceeded to ride in various attire. It turned out that the safest way to ride was in a blond ponytail wig and dressed as a female with NO HELMET. He actually got hit when he was wearing a helmet (passing distance <0).

So, MHL = fewer cyclists and decreased safety.

I still wear mine. When I was attacked by a cager last year (I was going around 25 mph in a 25 mph zone, he sped up to pass, cut directly in front of me and slammed on his brakes leaving a 13 foot skid mark) I think the awkward presence of the helmet helped remind me keep my head up and avoid any injury in spite of doing a full somersault with a 1 1/2 twist. I doubt it would have done much good if I would have struck anything with my head at that speed.

skye

Excuse me, but YOU are the idiot, by virtue of the fact that you either ignore the research on the subject or are incapable of understanding it.

OK, now tell me about the time that you (or your friend, or brother, or mistress, or whatever) got in a crash and their magic helmet SAVED THEIR LIFE!!! OMG!!!

I-Like-To-Bike

Now THAT is a new claim for the magic powers of StyrofoamHat AKA bicycle helmets. Their awkward presence prevents heads from striking the ground, thereby preventing injuries that the StyrofoamHat itself is incapable of mitigating.

Note: My use of the term "Styrofoam Hat" may be as equally awkward and clichéd as your use of "cager" to describe all things motorized. To each his own, eh?

I-Like-To-Bike

Who are the three Helmet Nannies? Fess up!